I've done the calculation for the NDP—I'm disappointed that you haven't done it yourselves. If we add your recommendations to Bill C-20, you don't even reach half of the adjustment proposed by Bill C-20 or the Liberals with regard to Ontario's under-representation.

For example, let's take the case of Alberta. Based on the current formula—I'm saying this for Ms. Barbot because she doesn't know it—there wouldn't be 308 seats, but rather 315 seats following the next election. If we don't amend the current act, there will be 15 seats, that is to say 75 out of 315 for Quebec. Alberta would therefore have 9.84% of the 315 seats based on the current formula. Based on yours, it would have 9.88% of the seats, and the House would comprise 344 seats. So we would be adding 36 seats, and for nothing, since the three under-represented provinces would still be almost as under-represented as they are today. The act would therefore still be unconstitutional. Your motion would condemn the House of Commons to pass an unconstitutional bill.

Absolutely. I must say I'm very disappointed in the attitude of the NDP, which has tried from the outset to avoid debating its proposal. We're debating ours, on the Conservatives' bill. Why are you afraid to talk about your proposal? You want to freeze one province's representation forever, and you claim that can be fair for the other provinces and constitutional. That can't be the case, unless you use NDP mathematics, which is different from all the others.

Now I turn to Ms. Barbot.

I'm going to explain my frustration to you. In 1992, I fought for the Charlottetown Accord, which was to guarantee Quebec 25% of the seats. Your political movement fought that bill tooth and nail. I'm going to cite Mr. Duceppe's statement: "Ultimately, what does that change?" He said we didn't need to guarantee the 25%. Mr. Parizeau, who didn't lack foresight, said it was entirely possible that Quebec's weight would be approximately 25% "for a long time". Doesn't your party have an enormous responsibility? Don't you feel guilty today telling us that you need it today at all costs, when you fought it when it was on the table?